Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

This paper proves an all-order analytic-continuation relation that turns known two-loop deeply virtual meson production kernels into NNLO QCD predictions for pion- and kaon-induced exclusive Drell-Yan processes, and finds the NNLO correctio

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 23:49 UTC pith:XZIJ5UXG

load-bearing objection First NNLO exDY predictions rest on a one-line analytic continuation with an apparent sign inconsistency; interesting phenomenology, conditional numbers. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15214 v1 pith:XZIJ5UXG submitted 2026-07-16 hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-th

Next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections to pion (kaon)-induced exclusive Drell-Yan process

Yu Jia , Bernard Pire , Qin-Tao Song , Guang Tang , Zhe-Yu Wang This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-th
keywords exclusive Drell-Yangeneralized parton distributionsNNLO QCD correctionsanalytic continuationtransition form factorsdistribution amplitudestransverse single-spin asymmetryleading-twist factorization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to establish that next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) QCD corrections to pion- and kaon-induced exclusive Drell-Yan processes are large and positive, frequently exceeding the size of the already large NLO corrections, so any reliable extraction of nucleon generalized parton distributions from upcoming pion- and kaon-beam lepton-pair experiments must include them. To obtain these two-loop corrections without a fresh calculation, the paper proves an all-order relation between the exclusive Drell-Yan transition form factors and the complex conjugate of the deeply virtual meson production transition form factors, then feeds in a recently computed NNLO deeply virtual meson production kernel. It also shows that the transverse single-spin asymmetry is comparatively stable under these higher-order corrections, which makes it a cleaner observable. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the first NNLO treatment of these processes, and it changes the predicted cross sections substantially over much of the planned kinematic range.

Core claim

On its own terms, this paper claims that the transition form factors governing pion- and kaon-induced exclusive Drell-Yan are not independent perturbative objects: Eq. (10) expresses them as the complex conjugate of the corresponding deeply virtual meson production form factors plus a series of derivatives with respect to log Q^2 weighted by powers of (-i pi), an all-order consequence of analytically continuing the timelike logarithm. Because of this relation, the two-loop hard-scattering kernels for pi^- p -> gamma* n and K^- p -> gamma* Lambda are obtained by analytic continuation from the known NNLO deeply virtual meson production kernel. Numerically, within leading-twist collinear factor

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is Eq. (10), the all-order analytic-continuation identity F_exDY = F*_DVMP + sum_{n>=1} (1/n!)(-i pi d/d log Q^2)^n F*_DVMP for the transition form factors. It follows from expressing the hard-scattering kernel in terms of the pion electromagnetic form factor kernel and identifying v_exDY = v*_DVMP, so the timelike logarithm acquires an i pi. This identity converts any known deeply virtual meson production hard-scattering kernel, currently known through NNLO, into the exclusive Drell-Yan kernel at the same order, bypassing a separate two-loop calculation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that leading-twist collinear factorization is quantitatively accurate at the planned moderate photon virtualities, where higher-twist and target-mass effects are neglected, and that the independently calculated two-loop deeply virtual meson production kernel used as input is correct.

What would settle it

Measure the lepton-pair angular distribution in pion-beam exclusive Drell-Yan at Q^2 ≈ 5 GeV^2 and tau ≈ 0.2, isolate the longitudinal-photon part, and compare the integrated |t'| ≤ 0.5 GeV^2 cross section with the NNLO prediction; a disagreement beyond the scale-variation band would indicate missing higher-twist contributions or an incorrect input kernel.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • NNLO corrections must be included before comparing leading-twist predictions with future pion- and kaon-beam lepton-pair data; dropping them substantially understates the predicted cross sections.
  • The all-order relation means any future extension of deeply virtual meson production to higher orders automatically upgrades exclusive Drell-Yan predictions to the same order without new diagram calculations.
  • The transverse single-spin asymmetry is stable against NLO and NNLO corrections, so it can serve as a cleaner observable for constraining the helicity-flip generalized parton distribution than the unpolarized cross section.
  • The two phenomenological GPD parametrizations used in the paper differ by roughly an order of magnitude in cross section even after NNLO corrections, so cross-section data will mainly discriminate among GPD models unless the hard-scattering piece is pinned down.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the leading-twist expansion is as slowly converging as the size of these NNLO terms suggests, resummed or higher-twist-improved predictions may be needed before the same hard-scattering coefficients can be used to extract GPDs; the paper itself notes that no known method resolves this issue.
  • The same analytic-continuation dictionary likely applies to other timelike GPD observables, such as timelike Compton scattering or crossed channels of other hard exclusive processes, offering a general way to recycle spacelike NNLO kernels.
  • A testable extension would measure the ratio of kaon- to pion-induced cross sections; the NNLO treatment predicts an SU(3)-breaking pattern through the kaon distribution amplitude and strange-quark GPDs that could be checked independently.
  • Because the asymmetry is NNLO-stable, even a low-luminosity polarized-target measurement could usefully constrain the GPD E, a point the paper states but does not develop as a dedicated experimental strategy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims the first NNLO QCD calculation for the exclusive pion- and kaon-induced Drell-Yan processes π^- p → γ^* n and K^- p → γ^* Λ in leading-twist collinear factorization. The technical route is crossing: Eq. (10) relates the Drell-Yan transition form factors to complex-conjugated DVMP form factors through a logarithmic shift, and the NNLO DVMP kernel from the companion paper [32] is imported. Numerical predictions for J-PARC kinematics (Q^2 ~ 2–6 GeV^2, τ ~ 0.2) are made with two GPD models (GK and GUMP) and lattice-motivated pion/kaon DAs. The central phenomenological claim is that NNLO corrections are large and positive, often exceeding 100% of the already large NLO corrections, so their inclusion is imperative. The paper also evaluates the transverse single-spin asymmetry and finds it relatively stable order by order.

Significance. If Eq. (10) and the imported two-loop kernel are correct, this is a useful and timely first NNLO study of these exclusive Drell-Yan channels, directly relevant to the proposed J-PARC measurements. The paper benefits from using two independent GPD parametrizations, explicit DA inputs, scale-variation uncertainties, and a polarization observable. The crossing strategy is plausible and the NLO expression in Eq. (8) is explicit. However, the paper is not self-contained: the all-order relation Eq. (10) is not derived, no NNLO coefficient function is displayed, and the numerical results depend on companion work [32] with overlapping authorship. The phenomenological conclusion is also drawn entirely from leading-twist predictions in a moderate-Q^2 region where the paper itself concedes higher-twist effects can be significant.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.B, Eq. (10)] The all-order relation F_exDY = F*_DVMP + Σ (1/n!)(-iπ d/dlog Q^2)^n F*_DVMP is the linchpin of the NNLO claim, but it is stated without derivation. Starting from Eq. (7) with L = log(μ^2/Q^2), the timelike continuation is L → L + iπ; a Taylor expansion of F*_DVMP(L) gives exp(iπ d/dL) = exp(-iπ d/dlog Q^2) only if the derivative acts at fixed α_s, fixed GPDs and DAs, and if the coefficient functions are real-analytic in v. None of these conditions is stated. In addition, Eq. (6) changes ξ from +η (DVMP) to −η (Drell-Yan), and the x-integration contour can cross the singularities at x = ±ξ; the paper does not justify the contour deformation. A direct NLO verification of Eq. (10) against Eq. (8) would resolve whether the sign and contour are correct. Without that, the NNLO results rest on an unverified assumption.
  2. [§III and §IV] No NNLO coefficient function C_i^2(u,v) is displayed anywhere, and no numerical code is provided. The entire NNLO prediction is imported from ref. [32] through Eq. (10). Since ref. [32] has overlapping authorship with this manuscript, this is not an independent check. A reader cannot verify the continuation or the numerical implementation. At minimum, the paper should display one explicit two-loop coefficient function (or provide an ancillary file) and compare the NLO limit of the continued formula with the direct NLO calculation from Eq. (8).
  3. [§II.A and §IV] The abstract and summary state that NNLO corrections are 'imperative for reliable theoretical predictions' and often exceed 100% of the NLO corrections. These claims are drawn entirely from leading-twist predictions at Q^2 ~ 2–6 GeV^2. The paper itself notes after Eq. (3) that higher-twist contributions 'can remain numerically significant in the moderate-Q region.' No estimate of higher-twist or target-mass corrections is provided, and the two GPD models differ by roughly an order of magnitude in the plotted cross sections. The central phenomenological conclusion should either be supported by a quantitative estimate of neglected terms or be reformulated as a statement about the leading-twist perturbative series only.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (2), (5), (6)] The sign convention between ξ and η is confusing: Eq. (2) defines ξ negative for Drell-Yan, Eq. (5) states η ≈ −ξ, and Eq. (6) uses ξ = η for DVMP but ξ = −η for Drell-Yan. Please make the notation consistent throughout, especially in Eq. (10).
  2. [Eqs. (7)–(8)] The text says singularities at x = ±ξ are regulated by ξ → ξ − iε, but Eq. (8) has denominators (ξ − x − iε) and (ξ + x − iε). Clarify how these two prescriptions are related and how the continuation to v* affects the iε terms.
  3. [Section III] The symbol n_L = 3 in the numerical setup is not defined. If it means the number of active flavors or the loop order, please define it explicitly.
  4. [References] Ref. [30] is incomplete in the bibliography as printed (missing journal/volume/page or arXiv identifier). Please correct.
  5. [Section III] The text repeatedly states that NNLO corrections 'exceed 100% of the already large NLO corrections' but gives no explicit K-factors or a table quantifying LO→NLO→NNLO ratios. A table would make the central claim quantitative and easier to verify from the figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the NNLO DY result is derived by analytic continuation from an independent (though overlapping-author) DVMP calculation, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The central NNLO hard-scattering coefficients are not fit to data and are not defined in terms of the DY observables. Eq. (10) is presented as a derived all-order connection between the DVMP and exclusive-DY TFFs, obtained by complex conjugation and analytic continuation of logarithms; this is a legitimate application of a prior result rather than a self-definitional identity. The GPD and DA inputs (GK, GUMP, RQCD, LPC) are external phenomenological/lattice inputs used to evaluate the convolutions, not parameters fitted to the DY cross sections that are then 'predicted.' Ref. [32] does overlap in authorship, but it is a parameter-free perturbative calculation with stated factorization assumptions and does not contain the DY result as an input, so the self-citation is real evidence rather than circularity. The reviewer's concerns about the sign of the i pi term, the xi-singularity contour, and the lack of an independent check of [32] are important correctness and reproducibility risks, but they are not circularity: even if Eq. (10) were wrong, that would be an error, not a reduction of the output to the input by construction. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or entities and fits no new parameters. Its numerical predictions rest on external fitted DAs and GPD models, on standard QCD factorization, and critically on the companion two-loop DVMP calculation [32]. The only genuinely new mathematical content is the analytic-continuation mapping in Eq. (10), which is asserted without proof.

free parameters (3)
  • Pion DA Gegenbauer moment a2(2 GeV) = 0.116 +0.019 -0.020
    External RQCD lattice value used in Eq. (17); affects the numerical cross-section scale.
  • Kaon DA Gegenbauer moments a1..a4(2 GeV) = a1=-0.108±0.014±0.051, a2=0.170±0.014±0.044, a3=-0.043±0.006±0.022, a4=0.073±0.008±0.021
    LPC lattice values used in Eq. (17) for the kaon DA.
  • Parameters of GK and GUMP nucleon GPD models = Not listed in this paper; taken from refs [36-39,45]
    These fitted model parameters control the GPD shapes and absolute cross-section magnitude; GUMP gives roughly an order of magnitude larger cross sections than GK.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Twist-2 collinear factorization of the exclusive meson-induced Drell-Yan amplitude in terms of meson DAs and nucleon GPDs (Eq. 6) is valid at leading twist.
    The entire NNLO calculation and cross-section predictions are built on this factorization, introduced by Berger-Diehl-Pire [22] and used without proof here.
  • standard math The all-order analytic-continuation relation Eq. (10) between exDY and DVMP transition form factors is correct.
    This relation is the bridge converting the DVMP NNLO kernel into the exDY kernel; it is asserted in Section II.B without proof or an explicit citation of the exact formula.
  • domain assumption The two-loop DVMP hard-scattering kernel quoted from ref. [32] is correct for both pion and kaon DAs.
    The central numerical NNLO content is not recomputed here; if the companion calculation [32] contains an error, the conclusions of this paper inherit it.
  • domain assumption Nonperturbative inputs (RQCD pion DA moments, LPC kaon DA moments, GK and GUMP GPD parametrizations) are accurate enough for the quoted cross-section magnitudes.
    These external fits enter Eq. (17) and the numerical evaluation; the paper uses them without propagating their uncertainties.
  • domain assumption At the planned J-PARC kinematics Q^2 ~ 2-6 GeV^2, higher-twist and target-mass effects are sufficiently suppressed by 1/Q to be neglected at leading twist.
    The paper notes in Section II.A that higher-twist contributions 'can remain numerically significant' at moderate Q, yet the cross-section predictions are leading-twist only.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11164 in / 14782 out tokens · 123022 ms · 2026-08-01T23:49:37.162034+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The high-energy pion and kaon beams proposed for future experiments at J-PARC offer a unique opportunity to investigate exclusive Drell-Yan processes induced by pions or kaons, which correspond to inverse deeply virtual meson production with $M=\pi,K$. To facilitate precise comparisons between theoretical predictions and forthcoming experimental data, we calculate the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD corrections to the processes $\pi^- p\to \gamma^*(\to l^+l^-) + n$ and $K^- p\to \gamma^*(\to l^+l^-) + \Lambda$. Our calculations are performed within the generalized parton distribution (GPD) factorization framework, accurate to leading twist in the generalized Bjorken limit ($Q^2\gg |t|,\,\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$). We find that the NNLO QCD corrections are substantial and positive; therefore, their inclusion is imperative for reliable theoretical predictions in confrontation with future experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15214 by Bernard Pire, Guang Tang, Qin-Tao Song, Yu Jia, Zhe-Yu Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic illustration of the factorized structure of the pion-induced exclusive Drell-Yan process, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Differential cross section given by Eq. (3) for the exclusive process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Same as Fig. 2, but for the exclusive Drell–Yan process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Same as Fig. 3, but for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Same as Fig. 6, but for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    M¨ uller, D

    D. M¨ uller, D. Robaschik, B. Geyer, F. M. Dittes and J. Hoˇ rejˇ si, Fortsch. Phys.42(1994), 101-141

    1994

  2. [2]

    X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D55(1997), 7114-7125

    1997

  3. [3]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B380(1996), 417-425

    1996

  4. [4]

    Diehl, Phys

    M. Diehl, Phys. Rept.388(2003), 41-277

    2003

  5. [5]

    A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept.418(2005), 1-387

    2005

  6. [6]

    Boffi and B

    S. Boffi and B. Pasquini, Riv. Nuovo Cim.30(2007) no.9, 387-448

    2007

  7. [7]

    Goeke, M

    K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.47(2001), 401-515

    2001

  8. [8]

    Bo¨ er, A

    M. Bo¨ er, A. Camsonne, M. Constantinou, H. S. Jo, K. Joo, K. Semenov-Tian-Shansky, H. D. Son, P. Sznajder, C. Van Hulse and J. Wagner,et al.[arXiv:2512.15064 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Burkardt, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D62(2000), 071503 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D66(2002), 119903]

    2000

  10. [10]

    V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, F. X. Girod, C. Lorc´ e, P. Schweitzer and P. E. Shanahan, Rev. Mod. Phys.95(2023) no.4, 041002

    2023

  11. [11]

    Kumano, Q

    S. Kumano, Q. T. Song and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) no.1, 014020

    2018

  12. [12]

    Freese and I

    A. Freese and I. C. Clo¨ et, Phys. Rev. C100(2019) no.1, 015201 [erratum: Phys. Rev. C105(2022) no.5, 059901]

    2019

  13. [13]

    B. D. Sun and Y. B. Dong, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.9, 096008

    2020

  14. [14]

    Duran, Z

    B. Duran, Z. E. Meziani, S. Joosten, M. K. Jones, S. Prasad, C. Peng, W. Armstrong, H. Atac, E. Chudakov and H. Bhatt, et al.Nature615(2023) no.7954, 813-816

    2023

  15. [15]

    D. C. Hackett, D. A. Pefkou and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) no.25, 251904

    2024

  16. [16]

    X. H. Cao, F. K. Guo, Q. Z. Li and D. L. Yao, Nature Commun.16(2025), 6979

    2025

  17. [17]

    Y. Guo, F. Yuan and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) no.11, 111902

    2025

  18. [18]

    Tanaka, D

    M. Tanaka, D. Fujii and M. Kawaguchi, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.5, 054048

    2025

  19. [19]

    Lorc´ e and Q

    C. Lorc´ e and Q. T. Song, Phys. Lett. B864(2025), 139433

    2025

  20. [20]

    Hatta and J

    Y. Hatta and J. Schoenleber, Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) no.25, 251901

    2025

  21. [21]

    X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.78(1997), 610-613

    1997

  22. [22]

    E. R. Berger, M. Diehl and B. Pire, Phys. Lett. B523(2001), 265-272

    2001

  23. [23]

    Mueller, B

    D. Mueller, B. Pire, L. Szymanowski and J. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D86(2012), 031502

    2012

  24. [24]

    Sawada, W

    T. Sawada, W. C. Chang, S. Kumano, J. C. Peng, S. Sawada and K. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) no.11, 114034

    2016

  25. [25]

    K. Aoki, H. Fujioka, T. Gogami, Y. Hidaka, E. Hiyama, R. Honda, A. Hosaka, Y. Ichikawa, M. Ieiri and M. Isaka,et al. [arXiv:2110.04462 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Jung-Keun Ahn, Sakiko Ashikag and Wen-Chen Changet al., Letter of Intent for J-PARC: Studying Generalized Parton Distributions with Exclusive Drell-Yan process at J- PARC

  27. [27]

    S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Phys. Lett. B748(2015), 323-327. 10

    2015

  28. [28]

    V. M. Braun, Y. Ji and J. Schoenleber, Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) no.17, 172001

    2022

  29. [29]

    Ji and J

    Y. Ji and J. Schoenleber, JHEP01(2024), 053

    2024

  30. [30]

    V. M. Braun, P. Gotzler and A. N. Manashov,

  31. [31]

    V. M. Braun, H. Y. Jiang, A. N. Manashov and A. von Manteuffel, JHEP01(2025), 069

    2025

  32. [32]

    W. Chen, F. Feng, Y. Jia, Q. T. Song, G. Tang and Z. Y. Wang, [arXiv:2604.28164 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Mankiewicz, G

    L. Mankiewicz, G. Piller and T. Weigl, Phys. Rev. D59(1999), 017501

    1999

  34. [34]

    L. B. Chen, W. Chen, F. Feng and Y. Jia, Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) no.20, 201901 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.134 (2025) no.22, 229901]

    2024

  35. [35]

    L. L. Frankfurt, P. V. Pobylitsa, M. V. Polyakov and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D60(1999), 014010

    1999

  36. [36]

    Kroll, Eur

    P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. A55(2019) no.5, 76

    2019

  37. [37]

    S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C65(2010), 137-151

    2010

  38. [38]

    S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. A47(2011), 112

    2011

  39. [39]

    Kroll, H

    P. Kroll, H. Moutarde and F. Sabatie, Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) no.1, 2278

    2013

  40. [40]

    Vanderhaeghen, P

    M. Vanderhaeghen, P. A. M. Guichon and M. Guidal, Phys. Rev. D60(1999), 094017

    1999

  41. [41]

    Kumeriˇ cki and D

    K. Kumeriˇ cki and D. M¨ uller, EPJ Web Conf.112(2016), 01012

    2016

  42. [42]

    Kumericki, S

    K. Kumericki, S. Liuti and H. Moutarde, Eur. Phys. J. A52(2016) no.6, 157

    2016

  43. [43]

    Moutarde, P

    H. Moutarde, P. Sznajder and J. Wagner, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) no.7, 614

    2019

  44. [44]

    Kriesten, P

    B. Kriesten, P. Velie, E. Yeats, F. Y. Lopez and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) no.5, 056022

    2022

  45. [45]

    Y. Guo, F. P. Aslan, X. Ji and M. G. Santiago, Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) no.26, 261903

    2025

  46. [46]

    H. T. Ding, X. Gao, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, Q. Shi, S. Syritsyn and Y. Zhao, JHEP02(2025), 056

    2025

  47. [47]

    X. Gao, S. Mukherjee, Q. Shi, F. Yao and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.1, 014505

    2026

  48. [48]

    H. W. Lin, Phys. Lett. B846(2023), 138181

    2023

  49. [49]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, J. Dodson, X. Gao, A. Metz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky and F. Steffens,et al.Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.3, 034508

    2024

  50. [50]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, X. Gao, A. Metz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, F. Steffens and Y. Zhao, JHEP01(2025), 146

    2025

  51. [51]

    M. H. Chu, M. Cola¸ co, S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, A. Metz and F. Steffens, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.9, 094510

    2025

  52. [52]

    Cichy, S

    K. Cichy, S. Bhattacharya, M. Constantinou, J. Dodson, X. Gao, A. Metz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, A. Scapellato and F. Steffens,et al.Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.16(2023) no.7, 7-A6

    2023

  53. [53]

    Alexandrou, K

    C. Alexandrou, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, A. Scapellato and F. Steffens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125(2020) no.26, 262001

    2020

  54. [54]

    H. W. Lin, Phys. Lett. B824(2022), 136821

    2022

  55. [55]

    Dutrieuxet al.[HadStruc], JHEP08(2024), 162

    H. Dutrieuxet al.[HadStruc], JHEP08(2024), 162

    2024

  56. [56]

    Dutrieux, R

    H. Dutrieux, R. G. Edwards, J. Karpie, C. Mezrag, C. Monahan, K. Orginos, A. Radyushkin, D. Richards, E. Romero and S. Zafeiropoulos, [arXiv:2604.21476 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [57]

    A. V. Belitsky and D. Mueller, Phys. Lett. B513(2001), 349-360

    2001

  58. [58]

    G. S. Baliet al.[RQCD], JHEP08(2019), 065

    2019

  59. [59]

    Huaet al.[Lattice Parton], Phys

    J. Huaet al.[Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) no.13, 132001

    2022

  60. [60]

    Y. Ji, B. X. Shi, J. Wang, Y. F. Wang, Y. M. Wang and H. X. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) no.22, 221901

    2025

  61. [61]

    L. B. Chen, W. Chen, F. Feng and Y. Jia, Phys. Lett. B870(2025), 139886

    2025

  62. [62]

    A. P. Bakulev and V. L. Khandramai, Comput. Phys. Commun.184(2013) no.1, 183-193

    2013

  63. [63]

    V. M. Braun, A. N. Manashov, S. Moch and M. Strohmaier, JHEP06(2017), 037

    2017

  64. [64]

    Conformal symmetry breaking and evolution equations in Quantum Chromodynamics,

    M. Strohmaier, “Conformal symmetry breaking and evolution equations in Quantum Chromodynamics,” 2018

    2018

  65. [65]

    Freese, D

    A. Freese, D. Adamiak, I. Clo¨ et, W. Melnitchouk, J. W. Qiu, N. Sato and M. Zaccheddu, Comput. Phys. Commun.311 (2025), 109552

    2025